Skip to main content

Full text of "General note books"

See other formats

^ A..^:^^ 1^ — >^ 

A ^ ■ .-^JL — ]^ — UL 




^-t*^ Ju3v 

* o-^ ■ — a. 



-f^—r\ " ) ^ tit ^ J I <IA 


o — A. 


U, . — PJ-.^^ i-Ji — fl- 
eet: C^^-^ 

^ ^ ' rr 


»»»» ■ — - — 


«-«» *c 


JU.^ k 

^^^^^^ "t^ »JX^ 

■ ^ 

CI— fc— ^ ■ 


^W^— V ^^^^ , 

-rt — -n~" ■J ^ J . ( ^ 

•--^ ^. ^ ^ ^-.^^ cjc:. 

.i2.^£2^^ — :x -^jC^ 

i » — C t . fi - - 


1 • D ' ^ 

1 ' 

' - _ , r 

n , a o.ld 0.' ttcS;^ ^ ^ 



1'^ V5-Vy 

■ 1 





J ^4 

13 *f 

^6 V 

^^^^^ ''"'^ ^^"^^ ^ 


A=H>^ ^ ^v>--*-o iU^ " *^V>^-*L /<- — --^-v- ^ 

-tfc. J>m^ . . — tlx.. r\ TTr — 

^^^^ 7 ^ ^ 

7 ^ • » — ^ ^ 

..^ — - \ 

I r\ ^ 



^ ^ 

t:;:.-.*i2_^ >^ . Jo - — --^^ -t^ cju.^ 

^ i Cs.— / ^ ^ 



A ( ^ 





oii ^ 

1^ --r— - 






- ^ - 

— ^ ^ - 




A Ti ~t -4 — r n ft 


«. ^ 

A A 

"A \ fr 

UU. —JUL . .---iUl — A: 





c^pSL -ttic:, ...^JU. — — ^ 


5. ^ 

1 1 

''auJj "^-Cr^^^^^ 

x..^^ (SW^ 1^<^ (^V^ _ 

I oUl OIISl "Fo^^oJI^ - ^^-^ K. f^^-JU 

J. <=> 

5 /^..^ (f^^-^-JLc, 

3<^ i^^M 


.-^ik^^c^ , 


Y y. Cot ^ lh^Ji-..^J^ 




____ J^JLU 



'0 , 

J^eui^ .je^- ti^jr ^02^ ^..^ ^ 


c^^^J^^^y^ c!U-^ LkJ) ~t£^ ,02, ^ 


UAijjue(2<a- o.- — 


-tt^ (U<(U 


^ /VG, )V7^ ,51. 



S ^ 

J? ^ 






— ^ y 


,T — ^:S^ — 

swers Prof. Gilbert X. Lewis of the. University of California. In 
a recent course of lectures at Yale University Professor Lewis 
asserted that the acceptance of the Einstein theory of relativity 
abolishes the idea of the older physics that the ilhSverse is 
running down like a clock. According to views hitherto held 
all forms of energj- tend to become dissipated and eventually 
diffused throughout space, which points ine^^tably to a period 
in the far future when the universe will come to a standstill for- 
ever. Any physical system left to itself would in the long run 
arrive at this state of nindownness, the degree of which scientists 
call "entropy." We read in Science Ser\'ice's Daily Scitnce 
News Bulletin (Washington) : 

•'But Professor Lewis points out that according to the new 
geometry of the relativity theory this would not hold true, for 
the chance that the system would again return to its original 
state of high potential energy without any outside interference 
could be calculated, and that this event would necessarily ul- 
timately take place. Thus all phenomena of the physical world 
are reversible in space-time. Past and future are therefore alike 
and there is no one-way drift of the universe as a whole. But in 
our consciousness time appears to flow in one dirw'tion. Our 
vital processes are irre\H'rsible. Life proceeds in one direction 
from birth to death. Vital phenomena, therefore, do not come 
under the domain of the physical laws. All reversibk* processes 
result from living things which are cheats in the game Innng 
played by physics and chemistry. Professor Lewis's lecture is 
regarded as a blow to the mechanism thebrj* which prevailed 
during the past century and is somewhat in line \^^th the 'Crea- 
tive Evolution' of Henri Bergson." 

W Y. 

y Mr- 





\ #» ' ^ 

^ ^^^^ iSZ^^ 
,7^^!^ jr^'''^ ^s.'i^^^M^jt ci-^^i.^ 7 

V V ^ \ > I- _ 

^^^^^ — 



v.u,.<^*.^ ^y*"^ ^f^"^^ ^^--^^^^^ ^'^^-^-^^ 

^^-e-^ *C_fl.yji.--JL — ^ -^-v^JI-yo -'2^-1^ -»^^-ytv-^ 







oJZ— . lt~ --v'© w «-^-t-a- • 

^ cJ-JA ^^^^ — ^ 

(T^ ^ ^ ^Hrx^ 

c^^,..^^ L,~~t2:. ^wOU^ 


i 1 


— ^ c — tfcir 

:^ ti^ ^ ^ 

J2_ ^if'^ ^'^ 

" ■ 



-OA-*-*. . 







8 5 .2 « T3 


02 ^ 

.S § 

§ I 

O) o 



® 5P 

5 fc£ 

d J 


& 2 


ft ^ 


© ^ ® 

^ > 

e3 d t? 



c o 

ft d 
— H c 

§ 1 

•a 2 

s ^ 

^ CO 

d a? 

> ^ 

O -O 

ft C 

■-^ ^ i > >:■ 


ft ® 


CO ® 

02 ^ 

03 O 

U V: 

rd .22 


?^ c « 

.22 o 

£ ^ ^ 

T3 . 5 

O 03 


Pi :: 
ft ^ 

2 ^ 

c3 ^ .ii c «H 

C s 


o3 ^ 

i I3 

i 2 i 

? 'S 
• S 'o 
--^ ^ I 

d ft ^ 5 

ft <» -1-3 


I (S f-i ^ 

S o ^ 

■-3 (B I ® 



£ 2 

© © 

d ft'^ 

•2 o >^ 

ft j£ d 

(D 3 *^ 

O 02 c3 

^ C 

© 5 ^ 

> 2 

© d d 


© © 

© d 



2 tx-d 

o ^ 

M © 

o d 

^ 2 




r £ 

> ©" 

. ^ > 

2 d ^ 

2 d d 

r- ft ® 

d ^ >i 

^ o £ 

^ 5 

© TO _ 
- * ft 



> ^ 
© o 


^ © 


p > o 
d © d 


^ K d 

^ ^ d 2 
o d d.^ 

©.2 g g 

© 54- d 

^ O o © 

2 > 

b ^ s 
© d cc 

i© 2 


2 ^ © © 
d ^-.£ 

' ^ I ^ 

ft cS >j Vi 

eS -t^ 
^ n« 03 

I ^ .£ 
I 2"^ d 

© ^ ^ :3 

© ^ 

d 03 OJ c3 

5 © 3 

£ d 

Ct^H © 

O © ri 

d 2 2 

© 03 ^ 

£ g'd. 

© S -2 J 

d ^ © 
.£ - £ =3 ■ 

•3 © 
£ ^ 

New guide to reference books. Isadore 
G. Mudge, 1923. 278p. Cloth. Regular 
edition, $3.25; interleaved, $3.75. 

Describes over 2,000 standard reference works. 
Arranged bv subject. Gives complete bibliographic 
data for each entijg^ully annotated and indexed. 
Used as a textb^«n reference study courses. 
Indispensable to th^eference librarian and to the 
person selecting reference books for purchase. 

Based on the third edition of Kroeger's Guide 
to the stiiiiy and use of reference books, as revised 
by Miss Mudge. 

One thousand useful books. Compiled by 
the Detroit Public Library. 1924. 63p. 
10 copies, $1; 50, $4; 100, $7. 

Books listed with notes under such heads as 
Business, Commerce. Factory Organization, Adver- 
tisintr ^ Insurance. Technical books subdivided into 
^1 groups. Some specially "useful" general 
i listed. Indexed. 

ed primarily for distribution through the 
Newspaper information Bureau, VVashing- 
C. Small edition printed for the A. L. A. 
ingle copy send 2c stamp to Haskin. 

^'»*-iodicals f«^' 

V ^ (f-^ 


^ — ^ 



• S 


o k. 

-to ^ 

.y^y^^ ^ JU> . ^ 

y . juJ. ii^—iL. ^^^^ 


-s^^.^ _^:-jujn>^ Uvt^..^^ -tt^T'^ 

(r-^ r^-v ^--^ ^ 


• )_-tfc^ U-C-OUfi. S^feS^ ^^^^^v^ 






<3— a- 


--^-^ju^ i^'jt^ ' 





r^ri^ , ^ ^^^^ t-''-^-^ - 

^_-fc;iWi^^ 1^ fci^ 


U 1 — ^ ^ 

^-JUSv^ ^^^^ ^ ...^jU^^iU-..^ 

' ' V / ' " 





^ c^-^^ c^^^jt, -.^^-J-^-.-..^^ ^ 

-7 ^, ^.-JC^JC^^ O^---.-^ ~ 

r-j _ 

/, ,A y ^ , J- f. / 

< JL 







ft- / ^ ^ ^ t[ { 

• ; 



^*T^^-S\ f ^ ^^^^ — ^ 


, ^ 

^p.>«s»-<-e-^-* — 4, t^^^ ^v*.,,^ ^"'CjS:,^ ,^ - , ^a-- , 

> rj CU^.^..-^..^iL^ ^ J . 


Q,.^JUL^ yyS^^^^ — , 

CdU. -tuw^. ^^r- 


6 Y » 



1 > s 



......iJZ^ i^"^ 


1^ , 

o — Oc >-) 







— cA. 


<3 'w,>-^ 



^~^tJL^ '* 










— oe 


<_ ''^-^ 



^ ^-oi<CS-. ly^yj-J^ ' 

r ^ 


r » 

-jtL^ oiZii ^tx^ t:^.-^ Lj^o , n Scr- 

^ I ^ • _ " 





T — ifr' 



^ ■ 





^ ""^^^^T*^ 



Xe:^^ ^-^o..^ oiLoJC^ cJU^ ^.^.J^ 




-tc::sc cMl— Kb -^^.^-...^ JL^ 


^ $1 ^ ^£JU ^ ^ ^ 

jr^^jiZ^j^ yrb^^'^ 


< u 


5 ...^ c^.^^-:^ ^Jt^? 

" , --^-r*-, Si<X 

V • ' 

^^^^^^ . 






J J: 


Aspects of ScrENCE. Second Series. Bv 
J. W. N. Sullivan. (Collins. 12s. 6d. net.*) 
Mr. Sullivan's papers deal with various 
aspects of science and of scientific 
method. Mr. Sullivan is among the 
most succesfsful of interj^reters of modern 
currents of thought to those of us who 
are interestetl but can claim no specific scientific 
training. He is not a popularizer of science, 
though two of these assays — an admirable 
sketch of onr knowledge of the structure of 
the atom and a lucid interpretation of the 
concepts iniderlying the theory of relativity — 
are popular exjwsitions in the best sense of 
that phra^^e. His concern is really with other 
things. What he seeks to bring home to us 
are the methods and ideals of science, the 
rules to which it conforms (" the rules of the 
game," as he calls them in one place), its 
relatio*)^ to art and literature and the life of' 
man giMierally, in fine, the nature of the 
"explanation*' (if that is possible) that it 
may he expected to give of the universe. 
Besides these topics, which take up the 
greater part of the book, there are a couple 
of essays, more literary perhaps than scientific, 
a ])aper on the position of men of science in 
he community and a criticism, trenchant 
and de-^stnictive, of tlieories of psj'cho- 

Tho (]t\y< when scie n ce dealt in " causes 
' ts _ are past ! Xo longer do 

^ti'i. iH'iilay down "laws" to which\ 

nature must conform. It has been found \ 
])hilosophicalIy sounder and far le,ss em- 1 
barra.ssing to the scientist (who wants to get J 
on with his job and not to embark upon/ 1 
metaphysical arguments) to look upon science* 
as a " description " of what we find around ; 
us in the universe, a resume, as Professor | 
Karl Peai-son has put it, of a wide range | 
of the scientist's own perceptions. There is | 
room here, of cn^ipv^, foiLaJ ' law " in the | 
sense -oL a^tormu la which resumes a w ide ; 

■ange jbI r elationships betw een iso lat^ 

pheTi.Mii« tin. a7id the'discovery of sucli " law s " 
IS ■ tion of tiie disciplined scien Tific 

iiiui^ii.ctii(.a. But a description can be given 
in many ways ; and it follows equally that 
a nmuber of theories, each of which will 
resume all the phenomena to be included, 
can be propounded. There is, in fact, a 
certain arbitrariness about it ; once we come 
to look upon science as description " we see 
that it must be so. Mr. Sullivan brings this 
point out admirably in more than one place. 

We wish to )>ostow order and coherence upon a 
•cortain reginu of experience, and we try to do so 
lin teniis of certain fundamental entities and 
i'ljiinciples that we have adopted. We prefer some 
schemes of inlerprelation to others. For instance, 
other things being equal, we prefer a simple to a 
complicattMl scheme. There is no reason whatever 
for choosing one rather than the other except that 
we prefer it. The ]^oleinaic theory is abandoned 
only I>ecauso it is much more complicated, when 
applied to modern observations, than tlie Copernican 

and again : — 

Our criterion would bo coiiveHienrr. If we found 
that hy adopting non-Euclidean geometry we could 
f'xplain a great variety of phenomena and that by 
keeping Euclid's geometry we liad to invent a 
whole liost of sjjecial laws of nature for which 
there was no other just ilicat ion. then, since all 
geometries are on the same logical footing, we 
might }»refer the non- Euclidean geometry. Now 
this is what Einst«'in has done. . . . 
It would be difficult to put more clearly than 
this just what a scientific "theory" is, just 
how <lifFercnt it is from the old notions of 
causes compelling phenomena. And it 
follows that, as we are at liberty to choose 
what stMcntific theories seem most con- 
venient, there will be room for individuality 
of choice. 'Hmt is just what we in fact find ; 
and Mr. Sullivan makes the af;ute remark 
that Einstein's theorj* is not accepted, or at 
most but grudgingly accepted, by some 
scientific men, not because they are unable to 
imderstaml the special difficulties it presents 
but l>ccause they do not like that hind of 
theory. He reminds us that it was the same 
with the non-Euclidean geometry which plays 
BO important a part in relativity theory. Gauss 
was the first? perhaps, to see that Euclid's 
parallel hypothesis could be denied and yet a 
))erfectly self-consistent geometry con- 
structed!. *• But Gauss quite realized how 
staggering, how shocking a thing he had done, 
and was afraid to publish his researches.*' So 
even in science we must not, it appears, 
think unorthodox thoughts. It is not done. 

A great number of Mr. Sullivan's pages 
discuas the theorj' of relativity, and the con- 
sequences that appear to flow from it. That 
is becatise he sees in it, and rightly so, a great 
revolution in thought. Descartes had ex- 
claimed, *■ Give me matter and motion and I 
will construct the universe." Newton had 
assumed that the ultimate entities, i.e., space, 
time, and matter, to which he was led by his 
mathematical analysis were ultimate realities. 
But w hy, aslis >Ir. Sullivan, should we suppose 
that what is mathematically describable is 
ultimately real and the only ultimate reality ? 
Why should man's ideals, purposes, and desires 
be abolished from the scientific universe ? 

It is not as if a description of the universe, in- } 
eluding the mind of man, in terms of matter and 1 
motion, had been given, or even promises to be given. ' 
The materialistic iX)sition . . .is as un- ' 
i nlelliu'lble as ever it was . It IS sufficiently remark- 
able, as isewton would probably agree, that a 
description of the world in these terms should have 
gone as far as it has. It is very natural, in face of 
this success, to suppose that the fundamental enti- 
ties used in the description should be at least amongst 
the ultimate reahties. But we now know . . . that 
the entities assumed by the whole of this philosophy 
are not essential to the mathematical description 
of even such aspects of the universe as may be 
treated mathematically, ^ye now hfl.vp ayi altemn- 
tive description where neither space nor ti|ne 


j riaiter nor force are fimdaniental . entitie s , and 
t ^r<^f01-e y.rc certaimy not uitmiate realities . The 
>mpjicar.cfls ot this new orientation of the~ science 
of physics . . . make the materialist philo- 
sophy a matter of purely historical interest. 

Relativity theory comes, then, to rescue 
science from a materiaHst interpretation of 
the universe. And that is where its great 
appeal to a mind like Mr. Sullivan's lies. 
jlThe imivei*se for him does not consist solely 
|\of the things which scientists can measure, 

weigh and analyse. There is also the whole 
realm of thought and feeling, music and art. 

1 1 So far as astronomy and physics go the kind of 
fl description to which science is committed by its own 
i| principles is highly satisfactory. The distance, 
mass, temperature and velocity of a star is the kind 
! of knowledge we want about a So far as this 

] kind of phenomena goes the s<^!kAiUc description 
, satisfies, although perhaps not completely, the 
curiosity of every intelligent man. But if all that 
science could tell us about different poems were the 
number of words they contained, this information 
would not meet the kind of interest we take in such 
phenomena. And a materialistic description of 
psychological phenomena, supposing it to be pos- 
sible, would, it appeal's, suffer from the defect of 
being quite uninteresting. 

Modern scientific thought is, in fact, enlarging 
the c ompact little universe w hich rationalism 
built for itself ; and it has now become a place, 
s ays Mr. Sullivan, where even mystics, to say 
n othing of poets and T>hilosophers, have 
right to exist " " The present scientific" 
picture of the universe, although incom- 
parably more profound than that of the 
eighteenth century, allows much more room 
for possibilities.'-- It has even been suggested 
tha^ it may not prove to be rational ! 


V-*^ ^^^^^ yJi-^-^^-^ 


o i J— ^ 



- CT^ l^o-^ ^ ^^""'2"° ^ ^ j 

^^^^ ji^^i^jL^ ^-^^ — , u A^^'^'^^'^ni ^/ 

C^o-*-— -^^^-L^ "fe o-€<L>— ^vl^ ..^^ Q^a^ 

(r — - 



OjLi^-^ ^^^^ 

in the light of amy » 

Between God-vision and the spirit of science in 
the nineteenth century there is no discord, but rather 
concord. The scientists of the present day ardently 
love unity. Their very vocation is to evolve unity 
out of variety, method and order out of confusion 
and disorder. in fact, science is nothing but a 
striving after unity, the reduction of multiplicity of 
phenomena into unity, the unity of law or force or 
whatever else it might be. What is it that you see 
in modern times but the evolution of unity in all 
departments of science, physical, mental and moral ?, 
What are Aatronomy, Geology, Botany, Chemistry, 

Anatomy, and Physiology, but the observation ot 
certain classes of phenomena and their reduction to 
unity and order > Place a mass of plants or fossils ot 
bones or metals before the scientist of modern times^ 
and he will say — "Science abhors multiplicity, and 
must evolve unity out of it. I can have no rest till I 
have succeeded in reducing this confused and ill- 
assorted variety to order and method. This is my 
sacred mission**. The scientific man goes through the 
laborious processes of induction, generalization, and 
classification, and goes on till he has discovered on© 
law, one force beneath a multitude of phenomena. 
One, not many, is his guiding principle. Like true 
religion, science, too, abhors plurality, and will have 
unity at the root of all things. Both rejoice in the 
creed of unity. The cry all over the world of 
modern science is unity of force. The Darwin* 
and Huxleys, the Tyndalls and Spencers of modern 
times are all engaged in the work of unification* 
They find many species, many forces and they try 
to reduce them to one. Whatever the merits oi 
their theories may be, they challenge admiration and 
merit sympathy as unconscious labourers in God's 
vineyard, and lay ministers in nature's tabernacle. 









0^ iJi-^--^^ 


^jll "tlx: — ^ ■ 


^--^ /r¥->- 


LO. >^ fj-^ ^ 

^ ' V 

X o^J^^ ^ -^o^ ...^ 

- ^ ^^^^ / ^ o-a^ — 



The ABhram, 

CabrniL'iti , 27-11-26. 

I Bee you are 

owe you a reply to severel questions in your previous 
letter. And I have now before me another letter with 
quotations from Thomas P^^ine. The quotations I hope to 
jiBe as you suggest. I have not yet gone through tliera. 

The articles on Khadaar you may use just as 

you liKe. 

I am glad you have nppreciated the articleB 
♦la'This Humanity ?• I felt that I should make my 

position clear irrespective of wnether it sounded or 
was in fact tenable or not. It is enough that tne 

compare duty towards tne ward witn y&ur- duty towards 
morsl welfare of the assailant. Now tne moral welfare 
of tne assailant is not at stake when you are defending 
the ward. It is his physical existence that is at 

views expressed therein represent^ my definite conclu- 


You will notice the flaw in your rmalogy. You 


stake. And, if^insteaa of tne assailant being a stranger 
it was anotner ward^but stronger than tne one tiien under 
your protection, you would still have to defend tiie one 
under your protection against tne otner ward who is 

about to as$;ail}the former and whom you have no other 

( BMX=w ^ youi :. 

means of overcoming. God will judgexjite/duty in accord- 
ance with your intentions. Indeed one may go a step 
further and assume the one who is to be protected not 
to be a ward but an utter stronger who hab sought pro- 
tection. Tnere is a beautiful tale in the Mahabarat. 
A great prince had a pigion flyi-.g to him for parotection 
against r hawk. The hawk feels that the pigion is his 
la^Aful prey duly appointed as such by God. The prince 
waras him off by saying that whilst pigionsfordinarily 
were a lawful prey for hawks, he cannot neglect the 
obvious uuty of protecting those wno aaugAt his protec- 
tion and tne prince generously offer-^ his own flesh 
as substitute. Tnis, of Course, is tne most spiritual 
methoa of decking witn tne hawk. But wnere one is too 
weak to adopt tnat method, one woula be bound to carry 



out tiie law of protection by resisting the approach of 
4^^ji^hawk by force. And this one woula do in accoraance 
with the law of Ahimsr- . I don't know whetner I have 
made my position clear. 

I see you nre not coming to pass your winter 
in Sabarmati. am sorry in two ways. Fir st^^ because , 
though I shrll be away, tne Ashrarndtes will raisb you. 
Secondly, because, it is the fear of tne Asnram climate 
and wp. ter tnat is deterring you. "^e , diet reformers, 
should really discover ways of benaitig clima tes/taWMbc 
to our will rather tixan succumb to them. I know, how- 
ever, this is KonxEX counsel of perfection. Tne step 
yuu ere taxing is prudent ana tnerefure in tne circum- 
stances superior to tne counsel of perfection wnicn 
cannot be carried out yiitiiout taking risk. I shall 
xxiiuixMlh follow witn consideraole interest your 
researches in the tutorial line. 

Devedas is quite well and strong. He has gone 

to nurse Matnuradas at Panchgani. I leave for Waroiia 


on tne 2Aabc 2 nd. Dccenber. My love/you and tne 


Stokes and Sundaram and Savit.t^ri. 

Yours , 


^ — ^ 

.^-^-J:^ f^-OfcZ^ ^ 

p. 131. F^4iL^ ^ 








[By r. L Vastcani.] 
Bleited it the man ^ho drlnkath deep 
at iorroir's oup ; 

Bl'^ssdd ia the man who mingleg with 
the poor and weak : 

B:ei«&d if the maa who takei at gifta 
defeat and Ion ; 

Bleiied ii the man who oalmly looka 
into the faoe 

Of Gtod the Silent Oae in tragedy and 
teari ; 

For dark aa Kriihna if the Path oi 

Truth and Love. 

V- «Ja.:ji. ^^.^ 

i^^.U^fcA^ e_t,^ ^^...^ ^.^^ 

A 'Kw^ asu-^ '"^-^^ ^-^^--^ n — — - -y 


/<JL.MU ^ 




^^=^=^^^W^^— — ^ ^Lju__l 

r • ^ 

^--r- ^ ^^^^^^ (P -^-^ 1 

r T / "^ * ( 7 2 

_ » _ji — 1 » i n ft . 

t> ^---^^^ ^ '•-.-^^Av^ " — 


JU ■ w-^^ ^-'^ .nXu^JlX ^-^^-^.r^ ^-^^^ 

^ T^ZX ■ 

'■^1 -tt^ ^^W^ 

/vat Ct^ — — 

5 w^v^ -L./~_Jlt 

^ ^ -I ■ 

/ ^ 

}0 o-^'-^^-.ZXr XZx.^Jl_ ,_..-.-^_^JL_ '^-^^ — — ^i-^-JWM^^^^^ 


V ^ ■ J!: . ^ , -t^:^ .JISL OL^ 


1 ' 

M 17 

c~^XJa^ U^_Y^ ^^...JL^ 






^^^^ ^J*^ ^^"^-^r*-^ rrr-jp 


hr, It: ^^^^ 


^ ^ ^^^^ t.._4:3e^; 
3 juu--j^ 


fTT- i ^^^^ 


Si ^ 



3^ -bt^ • — c-^^-^ *^ jf*^- — 1 ^ — ^ 

1^ -t*^ ^ -=*Xw« J j-t,^ ^^^-.-^ -tic . — X_£t^ 

-tt^ ^._xir cv^^j^t^ -V c_ pjLj^ 

> — 

Jl^-UO:^ u.,^-^ U^^-ii c-..-^ 



..-^ -te^ "t;^ (X^ 


1 1^^^^—^ L.^^Jtt^ 


^ ^ -t^ J^^^IA ^ tx> ^ 




-te- ^.^uL^ oa_j^ 

/ i — H5 L ' 




y — " 

tJv^ ^^^^^^ Jis^Ci--^--^ ^titr 

fc^ j 

£^ *"^V^ «^ 





jU^ ^ 

CoC ( 


24, 1895. 

Dear Garnett, 

. . . You gild the pill richly — but 
the fact remains that the last chapter is 
simply abominable. Never did I see any- 
thing so clearly as the naked hideousness 
of the thing. ... I feel convinced 
that the right course would be to destroy 
it, to scatter its ashes to the four winds of 
heaven. The only question is: can I? 

I am afraid I can't I I lack the courage 
to set before myself the task of rewriting 
the thing. . . . Nothing now can 
unmake my mistake. I shall try — but 
I shall try without faith, because all my 
work is produced unconsciously (so to 
speak) and I cannot meddle to any purpose 
w4th what is within myself. — I am sure you 
understand what I mean. — It isn't in me 
to improve what has got itself written. 

. . . If I knew the causes of my 
weakness I would destroy them and then 
produce nothing but colossal masterpieces 
— which "no fellow could understand." 
As it is, I am too lazy to change my 
thoughts, my words, my images, and my 
Ireams. Laziness is a sacred, thing. It's 
:he sign of our limitations, beyond which 
[there is nothing worth having. Nobody is 
lazy to accomplish things without any 
[effort — and thing s thal^can only J ie aX^, 

lined by effort are nq t,^worthjTL3^ang^ 

17, Gillingham Street, S. W. 

28 Oct., '95. 

My dear Noble, 

. . Do not be angry with me. I 
have thought your letter over many times 
during the day and now I put down here 
my exact thoughts— right or wrong. 

You have any amount of stuff in you, 
but you (I think) have not found your way 

Remember that death is not the most 
pathetic— the most poignant thing— and 
you must treat events only as illustrative 
of human sensation* as the outward sign of 
[inward feehngs— of live feelings— which 
lalone are truly pathetic and interesting. 

You have much imagination; much more 
than I ever will have if I live to be a 
hundred years old. That much is clear 
to me. Well, that unagination (I wish I 
had it) should be used to create human 
souls; to disclose human hearts— and not 
to create events that are, properly speak- 
ing, accidents only. To accompUsh it you 
must cultivate your poetic faculty— you 
imust give yourself up to emotion (no 
easy task). 

You must squeeze out of yourself every 
sensation, every thought, every image — 
mercilessly, without reserve and without 
remorse; you must search the darkest 
Vcorners of your heart, the most remote 
/recesses of your brain — you must search 
(them for the image, for the glamor, for 
I the right expression. 

And you must do it sincerely, at any 
Icost; you must do it so that at the end of 
wour day's work you should feel exhausted, 
jemptied of every sensation and every 
thought, with a blank mind and an aching 
heart, with the notion that there is nothmg 
— nothing — left in you. To me it seems 
that is the only way to achieve true dis- 
tinction — even to go some way towards it. 

It took me 3 years to finish "The Folly.'* 
There was not a day I did not think of it. 
Not a day. And after all I consider it 
honestly a miserable failure. Every critic 
(but two or three) overrated the book. 
It took me a year to tear "The Outcast'* 
out of myself and upon my word of honor 
— I look on it (now it's finished) with 
bitter disappointment. 

19th June, 1896. 
^ He Grande. 

My dear Garnett, 

. . . Since I sent you that part ist 
(on the eleventh of the month) I have 
written one page. Just one page. I 
went about thinking and forgetting — sit- 
ting down before the blank page to find 
that I could not put one sentence together^ 
To be able to think and unable to expresa 
is a fine torture. I am undergoing it — v 
without patience. I don't see the end of 
it. It's very ridiculous and very aw^ful. 
Now I've got all my people together I 
don't know what to do with them. The 
progressive episodes of the story will not 
emerge from the chaos of my sensations. 
I feel nothing clearly. And I am fright- 
ened when I remember that I have to 
drag it all out of myself. Other writers 
have some starting point. Something to 


''Lay bare your hearty'' was his advice 
to the same author in a second letter elaborat- 
ing his criticisms oj the writing. 

2nd Nov., '95. 
17, Gillingham Street. 
-:iU9J pu9:im i 9J9qM 'Xui3;;]Ja jo 9Joqs anb 
-S3Jn:jDid puB p^iAv 9q:| uo (s9pipjnsqB ino 
jo) ss9mddi3ii ino p^JOM 9q:j jo A\9iAjnd 
9qi uiojj 9piii o; X|9;Bip9uiun uopuo^; 
9A^9] n^HS 9A\ U91H pu^B q^uoui ST^^ JO q:^ts 

91{1 uo 90TJ|d 9:?!^; I^IM 93l3IJJT3tU JUQ 

^^\nx)^ \i 9UiuiOD,y Xj9A ST J9q;ora 
J9H •SJ9;sTS pu^ sJ9q;ojq ;q3i9 sisq 9qs 
•SJB9X 991^-1 pB9p U99q p^q i^^^'e} a9H 
;/qdBjSTnB3„ XuTjdrao3 ui30U9rav 
JO uijg ss9UTsnq m ^sidA^ ^ si3 A^p 9q; 
ui SuiAT] a9q P9UJ139 9qs (o2is sq;uom U99 
-:)qST9) 9DUi3:juTBnboB J9q 9p^ui i U9q^ 
•9ui o; JB9p Xj9a ST oqM uosJ9d 9p;Tl 

•B ST 9qS '92^090 9UI12lUnS J9q !9TSS9f 

ST 9mBu u'BnsTjq3 j9h •snoj9Sui2p we 
ji9dd^ ;ou s9op dpuvif Am ;T3q; ppi2 ;sniu 

I *S9pTS9a •SJ9Su'Bp 9|qUJ9; q^TM 9pS9JM 

|o; puB *9jn;u9Ap^ JO n^J ^JH ^ P^^l 
p9TJUo:^snDD'B 'AiOXTJi noX SB '3m9q 'p9gTJJ9; 
\um I :^Bq; X-es ;ouub3 i ^ng; -ra^ i u^q; 
'p9qsTOo:iSB 9Jora st Xpoqou sdBqj9<j •p9U 
• .-j-Bui Sut;:i92 i ^^q; — (S9jmb9j uots-bo 

1 nave naci some impressions, some sensa- 
tions — in my time — impressions and sen- 
sations of common things. And it's all 
faded — my very being seems faded and 
thin, like the ghost of a blonde and senti- 
mental woman, haunting romantic ruins 
pervaded by rats. I am exceedingly 
miserable. My task appears to me as 
sensible as lifting the world without that 
fulcrum which even that conceited ass, 
Archimedes, admitted to be necessary. 

Have your own home, even if it^s only a 
tetU, was his advice to Miss Watson 
fiancee of his friend Sanderson, 

T^ ^7th Jan., 1897. 

Dear Miss Watson, 

• . . I understand the "Fortune'' is, 
to be home. I am very glad. IwoulJ 

rather see you live in a tent on the lawn 
tnan snarmg the big house with another 
— household. This is said with all respect to 
every individual of both households. 
No doubt you understand me. It is al- 
most incredibly good of you to think and 
talk of me when you have one another to 
contemplate and comment upon. But I 
am more than dehghted— I am touched 
by the unselfishness of your thoughts. 
And yet it is what I had expected! The 
greater the affection, the more exacting 
It is: and I only hope that later on you will 
not find I exact or expect too much' 


As science is largely responsible for the 
growing complexity in human affairs, so 
science alone can enable us so to order this 
complexity that it can be dealt with effec- 
tively. To meet the demands of this in- 
creasing complexity we must enlist all the 
aid which science has to give. As Dr. 
Arnold Bennett Hall, now President of the 
University of Oregon, in an address de- 
livered before the American Political 
Science Association, at Columbus, in 
June, 1923, said: 

The application of scientific method to the 
natural sciences has revolutionized the world. 
It has made possible a material progress that 
is appalUng. It has produced power creatmg 
forces that have served humanity with prodi- 
rtfliifv in times of peace, and threatened the 

very civilization that created it in times of war. 
The industrial revolution has brought magni- 
ficent progress and mighty problems. It has 
yielded marvelous prosperity and profound 
perplexities. It is these problems and per- 
plexities that now menace our institutions. 
The power controlling sciences must supple- 
ment the power creating sciences if civiliza- 
tion is to endure. It was the application of 
scientific method to material forces that pro- 
duced our mightiest problems and it is only 
through the application of the same scientific 
method to the problems of our political and 
institutional life that our democracy can sur- 
vive. We must be as scientific in the solution 
as we have been in the creation of our prob- 


1 . ^g::^;^ 

I X 

T-e^ \^ ^ <^ 



.^^t-W^ ^^._iL , ^ ^ — , ^^^^ c^^-^-oi^ 

« ^ ~^It^ . . J ~r- it n " 1 — 


^^^^ ^ 


-r^ TT^ 

„ C_Jl ^ 


t V 1 I . 





7^ J '^^-^ ^ 

— ^ ^ 

^ . c^J^-^ ^ 


J L — 5jk -tc, — ^ 

^^^^ V>v^ 

5 ~ti-^ d-cr-^ 

J c IP -.^iL^ 




,_jbc ^=2^ 





7 V. 

Y ^ 


-at- Jl- 

r.;:^ ^..^ju ^tE^^r <i^^ 

L___:::3)i^ _ ..^.^ 

^ --^--^ ^^^^ 


/• ft— - i ( ' 1 * 

<-^-J^ ^ ^ <^-<x-a_lc ^^-^ ^-^-.^-v^ , ^^^<y> w-jNi^-oc-.-^,^ 


AT. TV. 


^^^^ ^ . 

' — '^—vut ^"^S^ ^^^-W. 

^^^^^^^ ' 

^ i\ — / / r\ /) 





—t—^ .-- * r — t »— /I ?■ ' • -/ 1 / il ^ 



o — a. ^__JL <-^^-A_<j ^v«^^^ 


^-t> — Ifci-R-Jl^ cr^ ^^^^^ 




^ ^ ^ xe. — ( 

U---^ J! j6 v.;— ^ 

) , 



Jf^ — 




jti^ ^^JlZ^, 

, . y^ - ^ -J2j^. <L^ ^ 


Uro ^ — JL )r^^^— ^^'^■•-'Trw cr-« >^'|A>v-<^ _ 




^^^^^^^^ — 





a -Si 


^^^^ ^ 


jbfc^ t-t^ ^Ji^ — t,' ' ~ ^ - 

v...^ ^ 

1 '/ -cxr^^ 


u^^rO^ ^ <»-C«— tDOL ''f^ ' — 2^ <=-fe--UlLti 

• kJ,^ 

Co X 




bti. "^-^--yXp 0-* — ^ 







"V oA-oOt g<i o-^/-^.*^^jL »^ -^--ji^ 

^ ^^^^ 



C.^.^^.^^ eft 


a-C_$U. Y <^ ^ tltv^ 










« — fi 









^.^JZP^ ^"^t^ ^Ziu. ^^^^ 

t^jj^^.^ ^-^W^ .^-^ "T"^-^ ^ 

-t^^^a^ ^Mr-v3 c-t, 5^ 


^»^JL._ -—J^ ^.*>,._L^ -.-^ ^ 

^ / 


) ^_ 

t. ^ y s 

— ] 



tfcjt- —Qcz^ rJ^-^JLSL -^aJ^ t^-^ 


■ ^ ^ 


4^ ^^^^^ «tir-<~-'<?- 

c ^ 


"Physical liberty may be taken from 
; man, but spiritual liberty is his birth 
j right, of which all the armies and 
I navies of the world are powerless to 
deprive him loilhout his co-operalion." 

During the last European war, those i 
in England who had conscientious ' 
scnjples to take lip arms 
dgainst their enemies were often 
derisively asked as to what thev 
would do if England refused lo offe? 
armed opposition to Geniiany aud if 
the Germans taking advantage of the 
defenceless condition of 'England in- 
vaded it and the reign of Kultur was 
installed at the Buckingham Palace 
with the Prussian bureaucracy j»uin^' 
edicts from Whitehall? Since tlie 
- pacifist Mr. Leach has approved of aii 
bombing in Iraq and the pacifist Mr 
Ramsay MaoDonald is "strengthening' 
the British position in the Sudan, it 
would seem as though w-e are as far 
from an application of the Sermon on 
the Mount to international relationships 
as ever. Yet when the war >\as still 
in its initial stages, an eminent English 
thinker, Mr. Bertrand Russell, attempted 
j tc answer the query put to the idxrcate I 
j of pacifism. In an, article on, "War 
and Non -Resistance" contributed to the 
"Atlantic Monthly" i.n the August ol 
1915 (now re-printed in "Justice in 
War Time", By Bertrand Russell), 
Mr. Russell assumes an imaginary situa 
lion in w^hich England having disband < 
ed her army and navy and having 
declared her intention of neither eni- 
T'loying force nor obeying the force of 
foreign authority, is invaded by Ger- 
many. The analysis is interesting and 
may be briefly summed up here. 

To begin with, the pacific attitude ot 
England would be inconvenient to Ger- 
many since she would fail to find a 
decent excuse — such as (that of self- 

defence or defence of weaker states— for 
her aggression and w^ould alienate not I 
only all civilised opinion but even th«» 
public opinion in Germany itself. Yet j 
even if home opposition is overcome 
and world-opinion placated, llie invad- 
ing force would have no opportunity of 
winning military glory since there would 
be no military opposition and the very 
simplicity of the task would produce in ■ 
the soldiery a feeling of disgust, i^istead 
of pride. The j>assivity of the j>o]>u 
lace, however, would enable the Ger- 
mans to obtain political control by 
gradually substituting their own bur- i 
eaucracy for the indigenous one. Bu 
at this point, if the nation showed as 
much' courage as it show^ in war, there 
I would be difTicultie^s. All the 'Existing 
I officials would refuse to co-operate with 
I the Germans and the dismissed officials 
could not all be imprisoned or shot, 
since no fighting would have occurred 
and such wholesale brutality would be ' 
out of the 'question. Nor would it be 
easy to create an administrative 
machinery without popmlar co-opera- 
tion. Whatever edicts might be issued 
would be quietly ignored by the popula- 
tion. ^Ffor example, despite oiders, 
German would not be tau^rht by 
teachers in schools, and if schoolmasters 
were dismissed, parents would no 
longer send their chiFdren to ^hooh: 
or the raising of revenue would be made 
impossible by strikes. Whatever the 
Ge-rmans touched, would be instantly 
paralysed, and it w^ould soon be 
evident, even to them, that nothing 
was to be made out of England unless 
the population was conciliated. 
Such a method would, of course, re- , 
quire fortitude, courage, and discipline 
—qualities which though re^quired for 
war could be directed ionto the ciiannel 
of non-violent non^o-operation that 
would make the task of subjecting Eng- 

laiul to alien domination impossiblo 
and preserve tlie best elements c.f her 
civilisation, without the heavy losses, 
•the moral evils and the de- 
pendence on doubtful accidents of war 
For power, in the last analysis re- 
quires a popular Ixisis. "In a civilised, 
highly organised, highly political state, 
government is impossible without the 
consent of the governed," savs Mr. 
Russell. "Any object for which men 
are prepared to stane and die can b« 
ijchieved by political means, without 
the need of any resort to force. And 
if this is true of objects only desired bv 
the minority, it is a thousand limes 
more tnie of objects desired unanimous 
ly by the whole nation." 

What is it, then, that prevents the 
universal adoption of this plan.^ Mr 
Russell says it is cowardice that makes 
it difficult to meet invasion by the 
methods of passive resistance. There^ 
is, indeed, no doubt, paradoxical though 
I kt may sound, that more courage and 
discipline are needed for the successful 
-uffering as a Satyayrain than for farinir 
death in the heat of a battle. The 
slow process of reasoning, the cuhivated 
moral faith, the tremendous imagina 
live effort itself are more dilTicuU to 
irenerate and sustain than the comba 
tive spirit with its stimulus to the 
primitive and cruder instincts of men. 
Apart from a rigid adherence to non- 
j violence the problem raised by a 
j scheme such as Mr. Russell's is psycho 
I logical, even more than political. There 
I muct be, not a mere intellectual re 
ognition of the beneficence of freedom 
1 ut a will to freedom so intense and so 
widespread that large groups of mer 
would refuse to attend to any work 
except the work of liberation. For 
this the essential conditions are a unity 
of sentiment, resulting in a common 
aspiration for a common future, and a 

j I capacity for public organisation. And 
j the task is all the harder when wha^ 
has to be altered is a well-established 
system basing itself upon and perpetuat- 
ing the moral weaknesses of a nation 
while the nation itsielf needs a training 
in discipline and public co-operation iiv 
which self-governing countries are 
naturally not deficient. At the end of 
I three years of a moral experiment very 
similar to what Mr. Russell suggests — 
though we have never known Mr. 
Russell appreciatinpT its spirit or prin- 
ciple — Indian nationalists have dis- 
covered that the fault lies not in the 
excellence of the method but ''n the 
. weakneJiscs of the human material. The 
problem, therefore, alters it-* whole 
nsport since it is seen that our main 
jnd immediate task is the removal of 
those weaknesses by creating a spirit 
• of resistance on the one hand and on 
I the other by constru^^tive endc^avours 
for strengthening the moral fibre of the 
ration. For, as Mr. Russell, in a *ruly 
{^andhi vein, remarks, "the soul of > 
n.'ition, if it is a true soul, without 
^lavishness and xyithout tyranny, can- 
nbt be killed by any outward enomy." 


out^ I -tot 


14^ wjz^ 

. ulis importariL . 
I literature. |4.o>- 

3bias Smollett 
Jward S. Noyes 

6, of which nineteen are 
,Ve never been published 
^the most complete and 
on yet made. $3-oo 

signer of Books 


book details the 
lost living typo- 
! contribution to 
but will stand 
n modern typo- 
ipt. ^3.00 

This important work is now 
three volumes. "A well- written, baiai. 
simple, and accurate story ... at once 
comprehensive, sound, and readable." — 
Nicholas Roosevelt, in the New York 
Times, ^ ^3.75 each 

Machinery and Labor 

By George E. Barnett 

How far do new machines displace labor? 
The author bases his answer on a careful 
study of the effect of the linotype, the 
stone-planer, the semi-automatic and the 
automatic bottle-blower; a lucid work on an 
important topic. $2.00 



Ml ' 

fOi ^ ^^-..-.-^.-.-.^JL^ ^ ^^^^ ^ 

(JA — ^ -r - — t-*-^ ^„^-».^-o->^ 1 

• - 



I'toV, fw^^ 1^1^ ''^^^^^^^V 

7 'iv; 


"'S t>i ,.7 ^1, ^^-^ 

< « 

u —